View Single Post
      05-24-2011, 09:40 AM   #440
Chewy734
Major General
United_States
464
Rep
6,798
Posts

Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: LA, CA

iTrader: (15)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The1 View Post
here's something fun for you chewy, i know it's not really an accurate way to look at them. but it's food for thought.... and as a bit of a joke.

5DmkII vs Leica M9

don't get me wrong, i think i've had some naughty dreams about the leica's, especially while i was standing above a case full of them when i was in New York in the fall, however......
Dave, thanks for the comparison.

As I said, you can't really compare the two. If I was a journalist or street-photographer, I would take the Leica hands down. If I was into sports or action shots, then the 5D hands down. What fewer things the Leica does, it does very well.

Have you tried auto-focusing your 5D in very very low light (and I mean low light, not candle light)? You can't. With a rangefinder, if you can see it, you can focus on it (to a certain extent). Regardless if you believe it or not, I've seen Leica shooters focus sharper and faster than AF on modern-day dSLRs.

On the other hand, good luck shooting anything past 135mm. They don't even make lenses past that focal length. Would you be able to shoot birds with it? no way. Can you shoot a sporting event while sitting in the nose bleeds? nope. That's where the dSLRs excel. If you want to shoot a horse jumping a fence, you shouldn't be using a Leica rangefinder. They all have their applications.

I guess what I'm saying is, I wouldn't mind having both, a 5D and a Leica. But, I have a feeling that if I ever get both, I'll eventually be using the Leica more often than not, and saving the 5D for those rare occasions I shoot sports, need telephoto, or needs higher fps.
__________________
Appreciate 0